The proposed $2.9 million development also includes a car park, rectangular playing fields and cricket wicket for junior sports, floodlighting, playground and barbecue and picnic area with drink fountain. During community consultation, it was found just over 50 per cent of the 121 responses supported the facility and floodlighting but the majority were in favour of the other elements.
At a council briefing last Tuesday, Burns Beach Ratepayers, Residents and Community Recreation Association chairman Stephen Turner urged councillors to defer their decision to allow for more investigation into moving the proposed location of the community facility and car park on the 4ha area.
He said having the building and car park on the Mattingleys Approach side would cause ‘unacceptable traffic volumes and congestion’, as the street was one of only four access points into and out of Burns Beach and was already at 48 per cent capacity, according to a traffic survey last month.
‘If the facility entrance is kept at Mattingleys Approach, the resulting location of the car park and community hall close to residents’ houses is a concern,’ he said.
He said if the building and car park were moved to the opposite side of the park, with access from the roundabout at Burns Beach Road and Delgado Parade, it would be further from nearby residents. He acknowledged this location had previously been rejected because of the cost of having to modify the existing drainage swale but suggested there was a company that could produce a drainage system without the modification.
Mr Turner said the City was rushing the approval process in order to meet the September 27 deadline to apply for State Government funding.
City corporate services director Mike Tidy said moving the facility to the western boundary could add $500,000 to $800,000 to the project cost.
He said it would also make the facility remote and isolated, which would cause surveillance issues, and more of the bush would be lost, as would some of the playing space. It is recommended councillors approve the development but the facility not be hired for functions at risk of antisocial behaviour.